Really cool! Tracking relations individually like, though, I've found to be quite... cumbersome. Great, you have the table, but... what now?
I've found an alternative method of tracking NPC relations, by combining them with random encounters. It works in a similar way to Luke Gearing's Reputation Table. I wrote a blog post (my first one!) about it. https://behindthehelm.bearblog.dev/a-table-of-connections/
First, cheers on Void Above moving to the next phase of its journey! Second, thanks for mentioning the WWG newsletter. Lastly, concerning characters knowing one another or not at the outset...
Like most of us here, I've been on both sides of the screen and have experiences across the spectrum. I've seen strangers playing together, instantly connecting their characters, and hitting it off spectacularly. I've also (as a player) had the unfortunate and disappointing experience of a GM hand waving the entire initial "How do you know each other?" This, in my opinion, was a crucial aspect the GM failed to address - especially considering that not all of the players knew each other. (In the times where characters start out as strangers in the adventure, GMs should inform the players of this, encouraging them to organically develop the connections and relationships via good roleplay.)
Referring to this most recent experience where I was a player, I knew two of the players but not the other two. Since the GM skipped what could've been even a brief, "Define the relationships" moment, interactions largely felt terse, and no one knew anyone else's reasons for doing what they did in character the majority of the time. The rogue left, the party split, combat was fairly uncoordinated. Predictable.
You need player buy-in.
Even if it's a short, "Okay players, take five minutes to decide how you are connected" - GMs and players are more likely to have a more enjoyable game experience if you hold players' toes to the line and ask for that kind of commitment. It's not a 100% guarantee for successful sessions every time, but it can help break the ice - which is better than breaking the game.
What do I think? I think I think that this loose sort of mechanical solution has applicability depending on the format of the game. For one-shots and short-form mini campaigns it has some utility because it sweeps away the need for players to arrive at their own character relationships which can take too long to emerge organically in a severely time-limited context. One day, I'll write my own post about how, in the context of a mini-campaign of Vampire the Masquerade 2e I opted for the 'organic character introduction' model, only for it to take three of the planned five sessions for the characters to assemble... Even, I suppose, in longer form campaigns it can be used in a session zero to establish some base-line connections. Lord knows, anyone who has spent any time in the hobby has had their fill of 'You meet in a tavern now get on with it'. But I do think it is important to observe that this sort of approach is a guideline, not a straitjacket. It should not be taken by players and GMs to be prescriptive going forward because one of the most interesting things about campaign play is the changing relationships between characters based on events in play, and I note that you recognize this. I am a little more chary of continuing to schematize character relationships as they develop, because it seems to me that this leads to the possibility that players will engage with the world with one eye on how their charatcers' actions and responses can be fitted back into the 'plan', rather than as an organic process.
Great thoughts. I think it’s important to see this as a starting point. As you can imagine, these relationships are open to development! But the point of the approach is to provide a focused, low overhead way of establishing the ‘social starting scenario for the party’. It’s something that you might shed naturally as the game goes on, using it just for the first phase of your campaign!
Really cool! Tracking relations individually like, though, I've found to be quite... cumbersome. Great, you have the table, but... what now?
I've found an alternative method of tracking NPC relations, by combining them with random encounters. It works in a similar way to Luke Gearing's Reputation Table. I wrote a blog post (my first one!) about it. https://behindthehelm.bearblog.dev/a-table-of-connections/
This is really cool! Based on it, I think you might like this rework of reaction tables I wrote https://murkdice.substack.com/p/reaction-table-overhaul
First, cheers on Void Above moving to the next phase of its journey! Second, thanks for mentioning the WWG newsletter. Lastly, concerning characters knowing one another or not at the outset...
Like most of us here, I've been on both sides of the screen and have experiences across the spectrum. I've seen strangers playing together, instantly connecting their characters, and hitting it off spectacularly. I've also (as a player) had the unfortunate and disappointing experience of a GM hand waving the entire initial "How do you know each other?" This, in my opinion, was a crucial aspect the GM failed to address - especially considering that not all of the players knew each other. (In the times where characters start out as strangers in the adventure, GMs should inform the players of this, encouraging them to organically develop the connections and relationships via good roleplay.)
Referring to this most recent experience where I was a player, I knew two of the players but not the other two. Since the GM skipped what could've been even a brief, "Define the relationships" moment, interactions largely felt terse, and no one knew anyone else's reasons for doing what they did in character the majority of the time. The rogue left, the party split, combat was fairly uncoordinated. Predictable.
You need player buy-in.
Even if it's a short, "Okay players, take five minutes to decide how you are connected" - GMs and players are more likely to have a more enjoyable game experience if you hold players' toes to the line and ask for that kind of commitment. It's not a 100% guarantee for successful sessions every time, but it can help break the ice - which is better than breaking the game.
Perfect examples!
What do I think? I think I think that this loose sort of mechanical solution has applicability depending on the format of the game. For one-shots and short-form mini campaigns it has some utility because it sweeps away the need for players to arrive at their own character relationships which can take too long to emerge organically in a severely time-limited context. One day, I'll write my own post about how, in the context of a mini-campaign of Vampire the Masquerade 2e I opted for the 'organic character introduction' model, only for it to take three of the planned five sessions for the characters to assemble... Even, I suppose, in longer form campaigns it can be used in a session zero to establish some base-line connections. Lord knows, anyone who has spent any time in the hobby has had their fill of 'You meet in a tavern now get on with it'. But I do think it is important to observe that this sort of approach is a guideline, not a straitjacket. It should not be taken by players and GMs to be prescriptive going forward because one of the most interesting things about campaign play is the changing relationships between characters based on events in play, and I note that you recognize this. I am a little more chary of continuing to schematize character relationships as they develop, because it seems to me that this leads to the possibility that players will engage with the world with one eye on how their charatcers' actions and responses can be fitted back into the 'plan', rather than as an organic process.
Great thoughts. I think it’s important to see this as a starting point. As you can imagine, these relationships are open to development! But the point of the approach is to provide a focused, low overhead way of establishing the ‘social starting scenario for the party’. It’s something that you might shed naturally as the game goes on, using it just for the first phase of your campaign!